CVE-1999-0295
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedSolaris sysdef command allows local users to read kernel memory, potentially leading to root privileges.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · moderate confidenceThe Solaris sysdef command contains a flaw allowing local unprivileged users to read kernel memory, which can expose sensitive data and potentially enable privilege escalation to root.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data= 2.4= 2.5= 2.5.1= 5.3= 5.4= 5.5= 5.5.1CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Complete
- Integrity
- Complete
- Availability
- Complete
AV:L/AC:L/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify the operating system versionRun 'uname -a' or 'cat /etc/release' to determine the exact Solaris or SunOS versionAffected if The version matches 2.4, 2.5, 2.5.1 for Solaris or 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 5.5.1 for SunOS
-
Locate the sysdef binaryRun 'which sysdef' or 'ls -la /usr/sbin/sysdef' to find the sysdef executableAffected if The sysdef command exists on the system
-
Check execute permissions on sysdefRun 'ls -la /usr/sbin/sysdef' and examine the file permissions - look at the owner, group, and other execute bitsAffected if The file has execute permission for user, group, or other (others have 'x' permission)
-
Verify if unprivileged users can execute sysdefAs a non-root user (or using 'su - <nonrootuser> -c "sysdef"'), attempt to run the sysdef commandAffected if The command executes successfully and displays kernel memory information without requiring root privileges
-
Check for unpatched kernel memory exposureReview the output of 'sysdef' as a non-privileged user - look for any kernel structure data, memory addresses, or sensitive kernel information that should not be visible to unprivileged usersAffected if Unprivileged users can view kernel memory contents or sensitive kernel data structures through sysdef output
The system is affected if it runs SunOS/Solaris versions 2.4-2.5.1 or 5.3-5.5.1 AND the sysdef binary is executable by unprivileged users, allowing them to read kernel memory.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor dataApply vendor-supplied patches for this vulnerability or restrict execute permissions on the sysdef binary to prevent unauthorized local access.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing1.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $1,744.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-1999-0295 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-1999-0295 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data